Secularization and the Rule of God The Peripatetic Preacher

I remain an inveterate reader of a hard-copy newspaper (though my subscription also includes the electronic version). You younger types will need to forgive me; I am 74 years old, and the act of holding an ink-staining bundle of primarily black and white pages of news is close to my heart. My paper now is the Los Angeles Times, one of US America’s premier papers, and each morning I pour eagerly over its many well wrought articles, devour its fine sports section (though too much Laker, Dodger, and Angels reporting makes this diehard Texas Ranger and Dallas Maverick fan gag at times), and relish its entertainment news. This is, after all, the entertainment capital of the US, so one could expect in-depth portraits of all manner of celebrities and their doings. But for me, the OP-ED pages crown the day. The Times presents a superb array of excellent writers, and though for many in the area the tilt is “too liberal,” because my tilt is that direction, I am fine with the leftward lean.

However, as a progressive religious person, and a churchy one at that, in a decidedly unchurchy area of the country (save the usual large sprinkling of evangelical megachurches that offer a Christianity unrecognizable to me)), our tiny megaphone of influence is even tinier here in LA-LA Land. And the OP-ED pages make that diminishment of voice all too clear. In a recent piece for the times, one of the deans of Pitzer College, one of the seven colleges that make up the Claremont Colleges consortium, Phil Zuckerman, argued that an increasingly secular world was a very good thing indeed, because a secular world view was vastly superior to the traditionally religious world view in that it focused more squarely and forthrightly on the problems and issues that all the world’s peoples currently face: reproductive rights, human equality, global climate disaster, LGBTQ+ questions, among many others. Dean Zuckerman claimed that countries that have become noticeably more secular, and noticeably less religious, have been better models of nations that have taken these issues on with rigor, with science and reason leading the way. He garnered some statistics that suggested that decreasing religious engagement among people led to better conditions of living for more members of that community, and to increasing levels of contentment and well being. He has in addition written a book that makes this argument in greater detail.

Such a claim could make religious churchy me decidedly defensive, but in reality it does not. As a long-time clergy member of the United Methodist Church, I know all too well that much of what he claims is in fact quite correct. Many Christians, far from taking with seriousness the pressing issues of the 21st century, have in fact stood against progress on many of those same issues. The planet-wide dilemmas relating to climate change have made far too little impact on churches and their proclamations. Christians have argued long and loudly against reproductive rights for women, and in the process have relegated the roles of women to lesser persons in multiple societies. My own denomination, the United Methodist Church, has for the past 49 years officially banned LGBTQ+ persons from the ranks of clergy, even forbidding any current clergypersons from performing same-sex wedding services at the risk of their livelihoods as pastors of UM churches. I could go on with this litany of stonewalling and obstacle creating that too many modern Christians have been up to, and I know you can add to this hall of shame. Like Zuckerman, I am appalled at such a list, and am at times sorely tempted to chuck the whole Christian thing. But I do not, and here is why.

There are Christians, and there are Christians. Those I have just enumerated do not represent my understanding of Christianity in any way, but given Zuckerman’s article, it is their voice that has been heard loudest in the land. The Dean ends his article with a crack about how Christians spend too much time looking forward to heaven, and far too little time working toward human progress on the only earth we have. This claim is clichéd in the extreme, though it does bear a kernel of truth, I suppose. If he had heard the Easter sermon I heard yesterday, a sermon replete with deep concern for several of the problems that Zuckerman argues only modern-day secularists are addressing, he might have tempered his assault at least a bit. I attend a congregation (only virtually for the past year) that focuses its means and attention on much more than wistful reflection about pie-in-the-sky and belief in the unbelievable; we are profoundly directed toward the world and its issues, that world we believe was created, loved, and made whole by God. In short, we in this particular United Methodist Church are on board with Zuckerman’s secular interests nearly completely.

I know well that religious belief is an ideological reality; by claiming Christian belief, I am claiming an ideology, and way of perceiving things, grounded in my belief in God, the sort of God that is primarily concerned about the well-being and thriving of all of God’s created cosmos, the plants, animals and humans of earth, as well as any other beings to be found on other planets. God’s concerns are for wholeness to the creation, all of the creation, not a selected few, not a chosen remnant. And because I believe in that God, I have dedicated my life to that work, the work of making wholeness and wellness possible for all things.

In the same way, secularization is an ideology, and must then announce its ground, its basis for being and action. It is not enough to claim simply that science and reason stand at the core of the secular agenda. Science and reason are key elements for all serious humans, but science and reason have not always worked for the betterment of all earth’s creatures. Science gave us the possibilities of atomic energy, and its evil twin the nuclear bomb. Reason has offered insight into genuine truth, but has at the same time pilfered from some acts of artistic beauty, claiming that rationality rules all; it plainly does not. What motivates the secularist to act for the goodness and betterment of all? I am not saying that a belief in God, however conceived, is necessary for moral action; I know many wonderfully moral persons who eschew religious talk altogether, who find their motivations in other means than religious ones. I imagine that Zuckerman does as well, but he needs to clarify just how he is motivated to act in the ways he urges all to act. A rejection of traditional Christianity is hardly sufficient to insure a better world for all.

I welcome Zuckerman’s article as a corrective for those Christians, including me, who have failed to take seriously the call of their God to “do justice,” that is to show genuine care for their fellow creatures and for the planet. I read his article as a challenge for those of us who agree with him in the main, but who have failed to say that loudly and to do that consistently. Dean Zuckerman, not all Christians are as you have described them, and a removal of those Christians, replacing them with a secular band, will not finally achieve the “contentment” you say it will. We progressive Christians want to join you in the work you have called us to, but we already know the call to that work, because we believe in a God who is forever calling us to it.

(Images from Wikimedia Commons)